GENIUS FORUMS

Somesay Time is another dimension in this universe! We live in a 3D universe like a 3D puzzle show! but that's not all!
If we are just living in 3Dworld, we must be like a stuck #D puzzle. WE have to add another dimension called space.
Time plus 3D to 4th degree dimension can be explained in this following example. let's use a math problem
THere is A pool which is empty and B pool also empty
Let's poor 2 cubic meters per second of water into A pool and 3 cubic meters/second of water into Bpool
3D wise, 2 cubic meters are added into A and 3cubic meter are added into B pool bbut what about time factor/
Now let's poor into A pool for 1minute and B pool for 30seconds
then the total cumulative water poured would be greater for A pool!
Well, so we might be living in a world made of 3d objects but at least perceptively dragged by time sense to humans.
Experience = quality of activity * time spent
does this make sense?
What do you think about time and reality?

another remarkable thing about time is hidden in the concept of 1second...
1second is the smallest interval of time that can be recognized and counted by human conscious and minds...
tick tock tick tock like that time flows with every second after every second
How did people come up with this unit as 1second?
i mean some peolple might have suggested the time it takes to inhale or exhale air to be 1 smallest unit of time
From the old days, people knew the general unchangeable truth. A day begins when sun rises and sun sets thus comes night. Everyday lasts same amount of time... and new day is repetition of time related to the movements of sun.
So the mathematicians and astronologists looked for the ultimate time rule.
Well, they divided 1 day into 24 hours and divided an hour into 60 minutes (24 and 60 are magic numbers) finally divided a minute into 60 seconds...
guess what that turns out to be nearly perfect time for measuring up small interval of times...
such as 10 seconds is almost the limit of speed of human racing 100 meters...
human blood pulses every 0.7 seconds or so...
also I forgot the exact time but it almost takes 1 second to kick a penalty shoot in soccer...
I think it's kinda amusing fact about 1 second

MrRemarkable wrote:1second is the smallest interval of time that can be recognized and counted by human conscious and minds...

That is certainly not correct. Ever see a digital clock marked in hundredths of a second? You can easily make out tenths, at least.

Playing music at an average tempo of 120 beats per minute, that's two beats (a beat being a quarter note) per second. I can easily play eighth notes at that tempo. I haven't played with a metronome in a while, but I think I could probably play a good deal faster than that.

Well, clearly a second is not the smallest perceivable unit. But let us take one millionth of a second. You can still half that etc. Some might say this is theory, but of course maybe the original poster here thinks one second is the shortest interval perceivable whereas others, watching a digital count of 100's, would disagree.

In tradition buddhist abhidharma, they estimate about 1/60th of a second as being the shortest interval 'perceivable', but this is a subjective statement.

Clearly, the logic here is identical to the interdependent logic used in explaining karma, which Quinn lays out very well in his book. Spatially speaking, no matter how small the particle under examination, either actually or theoretically, it is divisible if for no other reason that there is the particle and that which surrounds the particle, meaning there is a difference between the top, bottom, front, back, left and right sides. This also means there is always perspective/observer principle in any spatial examination, exactly what has been 'proven' in quantum physics, i.e. that the role of the observor can never be eradicated from any so-called 'objective' analysis.

When we think of the dimension of 'space', it is that which contains particular locations within it. Any location is a function of here and there (and thus the multiple directions/aspects mentioned above such as up, down etc.)

Time is EXACTLY the same. No matter which moment you pick to examine, there is something before and after. Or if you pick a duration to examine, there is always a faster or slower duration. It is endless.

The absolute principle is both beyond such relative measurements, either spatially or temporally, but is not either greater or lesser than such divisions. This is the buddhist notion of 'sunyata', derived from the word 'sunya' usually translated as 'empty' but in fact meaning zero. Zero has neither a positive nor a negative value; that is the definition of its meaning. So it is the absence of any quantitative value, i.e. an 'absolute' value, i.e. a value which cannot be measured.

Ultimately there is no essential difference between time and space since both are ways of determining relative existence (in space and time) viz. an 'absolute' continuum which contains such relative values. Zero is infinite; both nothing and everything and both and neither.

So the whole business with time is essentially just another concept. And all concepts are vehicles of relativity, not absolutivity or absolution for that matter.

Red herring, aka pink elephant aka in traditional buddhist analogy: 'horns on a rabbit'.

Tharpa,

Time is EXACTLY the same. No matter which moment you pick to examine, there is something before and after. Or if you pick a duration to examine, there is always a faster or slower duration. It is endless.

Absolutely! Very well put. Now if only a Self Realized THAT!

So the whole business with time is essentially just another concept. And all concepts are vehicles of relativity, not absolutivity or absolution for that matter.

Red herring, aka pink elephant aka in traditional buddhist analogy: 'horns on a rabbit'.

I am not very well versed with the Buddhist or Hindu texts, but I’m not totally unaware of it either, but I beg to differ.

You see, once you end that brilliant analyses with what is said above, I cannot help but see how blind can one be after understanding what they have understood previously and YET, end it by calling it “concepts are vehicles of relativity”, because they have already understood, previously,…

Clearly, the logic here is identical to the interdependent logic used in explaining karma, which Quinn lays out very well in his book. Spatially speaking, no matter how small the particle under examination, either actually or theoretically, it is divisible if for no other reason that there is the particle and that which surrounds the particle, meaning there is a difference between the top, bottom, front, back, left and right sides. This also means there is always perspective/observer principle in any spatial examination, exactly what has been 'proven' in quantum physics, i.e. that the role of the observor can never be eradicated from any so-called 'objective' analysis.

...but have NOT Realized it…and hence contradict themselves later in the very same post itself!

How could it ever in infinity be possible to have any other perspective than the one that there IS? If there is, it is no perspective AT ALL, for it could not be a perspective without subject/object, including some underlying or something removed from the perspective that IS, and hence some sort of un-perceivable perspective, and conjures up the CONCEPT of Emptiness, Void, Tao, Enlightenment, which is supposed to be un-reachable through the perspective that we already have!

It is ACTULLY VERY SIMPLE to understand! "Enlightenment" is Actually no big deal at all! It is just the clarity of clear reasoing, and actually understanding what you have reasoned.

Hence, WHAT EVER that IS, IS Reality; Absolutely ALL of it, including the supposed "subjective" - "emptiness" that one says cannot be grasped or understood easily, and hence gives it a "subjective" calling, of it needing some sort of 'indicative' vehicle indicating something BEYOND a perspective that any and ALL of us already have. Placing it on some sort of a high alter. Calling that which does not actually exist and yet is apparent, Emptiness, making it confusing enough to conjure up all sorts of "indicators" to some "thing" that is not easily comprehensible, giving it some sort of “property” just like a theological "GOD".

AND then one jumps at this opportunity, saying, HEY! that’s not what I actually mean! So, what the Fu*k do you mean? Please don't tell me something you actually don't mean! Because THAT is illogical! And existence is Absolutely logical! Not even as some think of it as "alogical", which is actually absurd to me, because we ARE thinking, and there is nothing beyond that, and thinking at it’s core is, absolutely logical, because it emerges from the very basic awareness, consciousness, A=A, that exists in any and every particle that exists, and we are no more than a bunch or bundle of exactly just THAT.

But on the other hand, it is that very confused jugglery than a mind needs, to perfect the rhythm in and of the jugglery that existence is, and demands, to help Realize, otherwise nothing could be actually understood, or Realized.



However... I'm disappointed, I'm sad, I'm amazed, I'm tired... I'm.... I have no words...

How blind and aware can the same thing make one?! WORDS!

Yes, it’s Amazing, and I LOVE it; It’s REALITY, how could I possibly NOT?!

Including Sue, so Sue me! :D

I will really go "laughing" to my grave, and that's all that really matters!

I actually have no questions at all.... I actually have nothing to say at all...

I can neither say this nor that, and yet I say...

How illogical! Right? Humm....




P.S. (Mr/Ms. Remarkable, it would really be remarkable if you could please remove your tee-shirt from just this forum, although I have nothing against Socialism, or any other –ism- for that matter. Thanks.)

Time is a concept that people 'fill'.

Wow wow wow hold your horses I have not gone that far like you talking about absoulty and A=A theory or conjuring up every emptyness into god's property...
All I said is time can be quite confusing concept to people's mind
And I will not take off this t-shirt
If you wanna trade with your wife t-shirt then I already got one ready soaked up in my sweat from playing basketball outside
hahaha

Here's a few disorganised notes I made a while ago about time and its application to the two infinite forces that make up the totality.

How is Space Caused

I picture travelling through space as moving infinitely into contraction and while doing so moving infinitely outwards, the end result being that everything remains the same. Only because space is so perfect, so lacking in properties, can this occur. One needs to ignore the things that are contained in space, because really they are always resting on top of space.

As the occupation of the two forces within a non-spatial totality as no boundary, other than each other, space also has no other boundary, except perhaps time and matter. When a dualistic infinity exists then a initial or basic property will be created, and that property is space. We humans can utilise all the possible dimensions of this universe, except for two, we cannot add or subtract from the totality of matter. The universe is knowable as an effect, through matter. As an effect this means it is caused by some form of action that is opposite to what it cuases, to what exists. That which caused it must be able to add to and subtract from the totality of matter.

Even though space is created by the action of the two forces this would leave a universe with nothing in it. The trick is that the two forces are still expanding and contracting and they are now doing so relative to space, space is no longer simply an effect, it now becomes a cause. There are no final causes where the cause and effect process stops, the process of the universe never stops so space, together with the expansion and contraction forces must be a cause of other effects. Expansion and contraction forces are the content and cause of every other cause, apart from their individual selves.

Space becomes overlayed by the continuation of the combined creative process. If it didn't then there would be no flow-on cause and cause and effect would fall apart, as it would mean a fundamental effect would not also be a cause. It would disprove cause and effect.

How is Time Caused

Time is not another dimension, there really are only the two dimensions. Time as we see it is merely an effect, a cuased thing.

Time is the ratio between the Expansion and contraction forces. If you think about it, time cannot be otherwise. A year is a year because of some defined set of movements. If that is so then any amount of time is related to movement. So while things are capable of change, and do not change instantly, it takes time to change, then therefore time must exist - time cannot be something separate to the universe. There is no reason to make time an exception to the cause and effect rule.

Time must be caused, and it must be caused by the forces behind movement, namely expansion and contraction. Expansion and contraction viewed as a single thing, as a whole, IS simply another name for movement.

Universal constants are finite time scales, within the infinity.

Scientists often say there is something instantaneous property required for the existence of certain effects such as gravity, and the structure of the universe generally.

For cause and effect to be a flowing process then there can be no gaps either in time or in thingness, there can not be any spatial areas that are truly empty of everything. Time and the properties of things might be different but there can be no separation, no dimensions of nothingness. An underlying instantaneousness must hold this non-separation in place. Gravity is the best example of instantaneous reaction in all directions.

Our linear time is created by infinite-time being caused to stop for a continuously flowing instant. Our time is finite time, otherwise it would go both backwards and forwards, yet it only ever goes forward. Changes occur because of that which precedes it.

You couldn't have slowing or speeding of time that would show any predictability without it being dependant on something which was never slowed down or speed up - our time would have to always be relative to some unchanging absolute timeframe, and these absolutes must have two forms that are opposite. One of the poles would have a form akin to staticness and the other instantaneousness, and in the middle the balance between the two, the ever present present. Things move because the present is always a fleeting moment, while relativities cause things with properties to flow through to either pole, at which point they will have become so property-less as to appear to cease to exist, when in fact they are just segregating towards their pure states as infinitely unequal opposite forces.

I'm sorry ! that post was just a joke though
Quoting from Zinedine Zidane versus Materazzi incident
ok

"..but have NOT Realized it…and hence contradict themselves later in the very same post itself!

How could it ever in infinity be possible to have any other perspective than the one that there IS? If there is, it is no perspective AT ALL, for it could not be a perspective without subject/object, including some underlying or something removed from the perspective that IS, and hence some sort of un-perceivable perspective, and conjures up the CONCEPT of Emptiness, Void, Tao, Enlightenment, which is supposed to be un-reachable through the perspective that we already have! "

If I did self-contradict, then would appreciate clearer explanation of how. Could not understand yours.

Any perspective involves location which involves particularisation of space-time which involves interdependencies ad infinitum. There is no time or space in absolute terms and an absolute perspective is non-existent from relative pt of view. Just as there is no ultimate particle or any one thing existing anywhere ultimately speaking, so also is there no one moment of time existing anywhere. Time is a function of perspective of an organism that perceives location, i.e. here and there, me and they etc. From such capability we can also compare locations (or situations is the same thing basically), i.e. the situation right now is different from the situation a moment ago because of the change in interdependent causative factors such as: movement of clouds, raindrops, birdsong, wind, heartbeats and so forth.

The perception and notion of time is a function of the same sense of independent existence (which is both true and false, i.e. a real illusion) which engenders the perception and notion of space along with particular locations and situations (which are no less true and false, i.e. real illusions). I don't see any inconsistency at all.

Perhaps it was the point at the end that stated that 'time is a red herrring'? If so, that is just the same as stating that the notion of independent existence of things or selves is a red herring.

Anyway, for the originator of the post, here's another twist from the buddhist tradition: the perception of time is a function of the level of ego-intensity of the organism. For example, in the hell realm, each second for someone in the god realm is experienced as hundreds of years, so a life in hell lasts millions of years. Meanwhile, the gods, who live for a very long time by our standards - millions of years - perceive themselves as living for a few decades basically, i.e. their time as gods is all too fleeting. As you know, our sense of time fluctuates: summer for a child is far longer than summer for an octoganerian. This is not so much due to 'suffering' in the negative sense, but the positive, i.e. 'intensity of experience', which is another form of suffering, or 'passionate living' might be a better term. So the intensity of the passion with which we experience 'life' determines to a large extent how we experience 'duration' of time passing. The more things become 'same-old-same-old' or stable or uninteresting or ignorable etc. etc. , the more time races by.

And then the race is run.

And then...

And then you contemplate what is the nature of time and space, and realize they are apparitions.

tharpa wrote:Clearly, the logic here is identical to the interdependent logic used in explaining karma, which Quinn lays out very well in his book. Spatially speaking, no matter how small the particle under examination, either actually or theoretically, it is divisible if for no other reason that there is the particle and that which surrounds the particle, meaning there is a difference between the top, bottom, front, back, left and right sides.

I have to disagree that modern physics supports this position. Assuming modern physics is on the right track...

When you get to very small spacial scales, you have to take into account the very small dimensions (there being ten or eleven or twelve dimensions in total). At very small scales, space is not 'flat', but instead becomes 'foamy'. I think - this is conjecture on my part - that this is at least part of the reason for the Heisenberg uncertainty. You can not specify a location in space to arbitrary accuracy because, at very small scales, what we would consider a 'point' in our usual three or four dimensions is actually smeared out, has some 'wiggle room', in the other dimensions.

Also, when you get to very small scales, speaking of a 'particle' is often misleading. Things at that scale do not exist like very small rocks; they have properties that do not correspond to macroscopic properties. Thinking in terms of a wave (rather than a particle) is sometimes better, but can be misleading as well, again because of our macroscopic preconceptions about how waves behave.

This also means there is always perspective/observer principle in any spatial examination, exactly what has been 'proven' in quantum physics, i.e. that the role of the observor can never be eradicated from any so-called 'objective' analysis.

This is really dependent on a certain interpretation of physics. Many physicists now would say you have certain instrument readings under certain conditions which you interpret - and that's all. Making a distinction between what is observed and what is observing is arbitrary.

Other physicists have a more dualistic view - that you can make a distinction between what is being observed (which has a certain wave function) and the observer, which collapses the wave function of what is being observed. (This might be compared to an assumption that what is being observed - the particle or phenomenon - inherently exists.)

But in general, physicists don't like to get caught up in such things, because they are meta-physical questions rather than physics per se. Unless you can show how the distinction would show up as a different reading on an instrument, then the distinction is physically meaningless.

Tharpa,

If I did self-contradict, then would appreciate clearer explanation of how. Could not understand yours.

Sometimes I have so many things in mind that it might not come out right. My apologies.

Perhaps it was the point at the end that stated that 'time is a red herrring'? If so, that is just the same as stating that the notion of independent existence of things or selves is a red herring.

Fair enough, so things don’t exist independently but seem to be so, I agree to that.

i.e. that the role of the observor can never be eradicated from any so-called 'objective' analysis.

If the role of the observer can never be eradicated, which I think you agree, and hence there is absolutely no other way to KNOW any thing at all otherwise, hence…

So the whole business with time is essentially just another concept. And all concepts are vehicles of relativity, not absolutivity or absolution for that matter.

How is it JUST a concept? A vehicle of “relativity”? Isn’t our perspective the ONLY perspective that cannot be eradicated? Is there some other kind of perspective that we are not aware of?

Red herring, aka pink elephant aka in traditional buddhist analogy: 'horns on a rabbit'.

These are stories for children, pointers to a so called mystery of the “emptiness”, or points to some underlying Reality, but I don’t consider you a child from what I have read.

Time is not a “red herring” nor an “illusion” per say, and is absolutely necessary for any thing at all to be ‘happening’ irrelevant of in relation to what, because only conceptually one can know that time does not exist for Totality because of it’s infinite nature in motion, no beginning no end, but it most assuredly does exist relatively, and that relativity cannot be gotten rid of, because there is no other perspective possible other than a relative one, and that makes it REAL, no illusion, for any thing at all.

Hence Time is not like “horns on a rabbit” because of it’s “relativity”, but it is exactly what it is perceived to be, relatively, by whatever method that that may be, in whichever “world” that it may be, in relation to each and every relative thing. All that there is has to necessarily be relative or subjective, otherwise nothing would actually exist, not only the “knowing” of it. There is no other perspective, hence making a things perspective objective, that observes relativity.

All things exist because of causality, but causality is not a THING, hence does not exist as a thing, but simply a process, that is as much dependant on things, as are things dependant on that. There is no other kind of existence, and this existence is absolute, any which where and when.

(Mind you, when I say existence, it encompasses ALL that there IS, absolutely Nothing excluded.)

Dhodges: "You can not specify a location in space to arbitrary accuracy because, at very small scales, what we would consider a 'point' in our usual three or four dimensions is actually smeared out, has some 'wiggle room', in the other dimensions. "

I enjoyed your whole post but singled this part out to continue with: scale is relative, so whether it is small or large is irrelevant essentially. I am not familiar with multi-dimensional theory so cannot comment on that stuff, not knowing what it means, and no explanation being given.

The whole notion of 'location' is relative because it distinguishes between one particular locus versus all the rest in 'the universe'. This is essentially the same as small versus large. The little finger is 'small' compared to the middle finger but 'large' compared to a fingernail. A location is 'here' compared to everywhere else, but without the everywhere else, no such location could exist. Therefore, it is a 'concept' (cognitive process if you prefer) that such location 'exists'.

Now in physics the observer principle is debatable etc., esp. when dealing with commentaries/experiments that show that particles behave in response to the test setups designed to examine them, i.e. Test A looking for X properties finds them and Test B looking to find Z properties finds them and not X and so forth.

Sapius: "How is it JUST a concept? A vehicle of “relativity”? Isn’t our perspective the ONLY perspective that cannot be eradicated? Is there some other kind of perspective that we are not aware of?"

Answer: our perspective is eradicated with death, with unconsciousness, in shock, in madness etc. Our perspective is a function of interdependent cognitive processes.

Sapius continues: Quote [from tharpa]:
" Red herring, aka pink elephant aka in traditional buddhist analogy: 'horns on a rabbit'. "

These are stories for children, pointers to a so called mystery of the “emptiness”, or points to some underlying Reality, but I don’t consider you a child from what I have read.

Answer: no, not for children at all. The horns-rabbit analogy is just a traditional one from pre-technological times, also flowers in the sky is another, i.e. an analogy for something which does not exist, that's all. Emptiness is not emptiness, rather it is zero - the literal meaning of the term sunyata - i.e. the absence of quantitative value, all of which are measurable only in relative terms. i.e. 'real' illusions as I said earlier.

Sapius continues:

"Time is not a “red herring” nor an “illusion” per say, and is absolutely necessary for any thing at all to be ‘happening’ irrelevant of in relation to what, because only conceptually one can know that time does not exist for Totality because of its infinite nature in motion, no beginning no end, but it most assuredly does exist relatively, and that relativity cannot be gotten rid of, because there is no other perspective possible other than a relative one, and that makes it REAL, no illusion, for any thing at all."

Yes, that is a good argument for the relative reality of relative reality, i.e. that, relatively speaking, it is very real. Which is why in buddhist tradition it is called 'relative truth' (not relative falsehood). In other words, even if we are empty on the absolute level, relatively speaking we are alive and to deny this is unhelpful, indeed vacuous conceptualising, aka 'fixating on emptiness' to use a technical term, which is no less dangerous than fixating on fullness. That said, it is one thing to understand the illusory quality of relative existence and then work with it wholeheartedly and quite another to take everything in the relative world for granted, i.e. at face value, i.e. believe in its fundamental existence/solidity. This is the mistake made by materialist scientists in the modern era (from which the overly simplistic theory of evolution has developed for example). So yes, relative reality is real, but also yes, it is an illusion. It is a real illusion. This sounds fanciful or overly metaphysical but we can bring it down to kitchen sink.

The room you are in right now with your body is a real illusion. Check back in 5 minutes (or 1 second or 100/th of a second) and notice what has changed. Everything is in continuous flux, and therefore NOTHING exists as such, it only APPEARS to, like the images projected onto a movie screen, whose origin is hundreds of fast pictures or pixels flashing by in continuous motion from frame to frame or pixel to pixel. There is no actual image there, but cognitively we extrapolate one. It seems like a 'one thing' experientially, but it isn't. This is true both spatially and temporarily. There is no such thing as a single moment in time, a single/particular object or location in space.

Sapius continues: "Hence Time is not like “horns on a rabbit” because of it’s “relativity”, but it is exactly what it is perceived to be, relatively, by whatever method that that may be, in whichever “world” that it may be, in relation to each and every relative thing. All that there is has to necessarily be relative or subjective, otherwise nothing would actually exist, not only the “knowing” of it."
"

Reply: to extrapolate from above: 'All that there is has to necessarily be relative or subjective'. Exactly. Relative truth is fundamentally subjective. Time exists ONLY in relative truth context, not absolute, and therefore is a cognitive construct, aka empty of any ultimate quanta aspects, even though we can build relative reality clocks and chop it up into little bite-sized, measurable pieces.

The continuum that has so generously separated itself into so many clusters, nodes and 'stars' of seemingly individual awarenesses, aka 'you' and 'I', is ultimately beyond such separations and not necessarily one identifiable 'it'. Absolutely, yes, but absolutely has no form or dimension. Just as with seemingly independent sentient beings, so with seemingly differentiable 'particles' of (location in) space or (moments in) time.

Horns on a rabbit, or if you prefer: wings on a worm!

Another enjoyable post, thanks.

Tharpa,

Another enjoyable post, thanks.

Do I take it that that means - Bye, take care, good luck to you, and so on?

If that is what it means, I have no problems at all, but please specify it clearly. My English is not that good. :(

:)

Any perspective involves location which involves particularisation of space-time which involves interdependencies ad infinitum. There is no time or space in absolute terms and an absolute perspective is non-existent from relative pt of view. Just as there is no ultimate particle or any one thing existing anywhere ultimately speaking, so also is there no one moment of time existing anywhere.

I agree in principle, I'm impressed with your understanding, but there is space and time in absolute terms, however any measurement of such absolute existence is relative. There are no absolute measurements of space and time. When measured time is always relative, which is the way it can only ever be, as time seen in that manner is an effect. An effect is something that is intrinsically non-static and not separate from the totality, that we can conceptualise as having a static or finite "existence". Nonetheless, if we take away the measurement relationship we have with the concept of time, we can still be assured that some form of time must absolutely exist. Time is an adjective that describes a property of the totality, as is gravity, as are all such terms of reality. Logically as things do not stay the same we know there is time, because without it they would, but there is also order, and the fact that order can form must mean that time is relative to some absolute and is not depenant on an observer.

So what could absolute time be? Well surely it could only be permanent instantaneousness. Our time has the same instantaneousness but it also is bounded, it is limited not only by the limitations of the requirement for the mind to have a perspective, as you mentioned, but by that which is the cause of time itself. By this I mean that time is both intrinsically connected to the physical, in which case we can observe it and science can say it is relative, but that it is also intrinsically connected to the same cause as that of the totality. What causes our time to occur, must itself be dynamic. If it were not dynamic we would be unable to conceptualise a movement related concept like speed. Time is relative and this relativity must be caused by something in the background changing. In order for the background to change then it must have parts and these parts must enable relativity, which is why I created my duality theory of two opposing infinite forces being the sum "total" of existence. By "total" I mean the cause of all effects.

Also, when you get to very small scales, speaking of a 'particle' is often misleading. Things at that scale do not exist like very small rocks; they have properties that do not correspond to macroscopic properties. Thinking in terms of a wave (rather than a particle) is sometimes better, but can be misleading as well, again because of our macroscopic preconceptions about how waves behave.

There is a simple combination of facts about the universe that ensures that there is no true physicalness within the universe. Firstly everything we can observed is known to be moving internally and in some relative sense to other objects in the universe. Secondly we are not aware of any thing that creates movement or power from nothing. Merge these two into one and you should see that the things themselves are the movement, they are the force. Things are self-powered, the power or energy of the universe is within them. There is no separation between the thing and the fact it, or its parts upon parts of other things, has intrinsic movement.

If things are intrinsically movement then there must also be an equalising factor of non-movement, something must exist to place a boundary upon the intrinsic movement or things could not form in the first place. We know the concept of gravity exists and gravity is an example of this intrinsic force of non-movement, or restraining of movement. Gravity is that non-movement. Gravity though could also be thought of as the path of least resistance - external things will move into an object because there is lesser resistance, and if there is lesser resistance then in a interconnected totality something must be getting smaller, something must be contracting. This form of gravity exists at all levels from the thing with the least properties to the thing with the most, including the universe itself (nothing else could cause big bang like events). Terms like strong and weak nuclear forces are merely terms of relative measurement of gravity.

Gravity is conceptualised as an aura because all things and their parts are merely an aura, an aura of relative forces that cause. To have relativity there must be fundamental opposition, and where there is not then no effect will occur. Empty space displays no effects because it only has one level of relativity which is so basic that all we can know is that "it exists". The same applies to the concept of absolute time, the relativity is too basic for us to measure and therefore we cannot successfully measure it.

When you get to very small spacial scales, you have to take into account the very small dimensions (there being ten or eleven or twelve dimensions in total). At very small scales, space is not 'flat', but instead becomes 'foamy'. I think - this is conjecture on my part - that this is at least part of the reason for the Heisenberg uncertainty. You can not specify a location in space to arbitrary accuracy because, at very small scales, what we would consider a 'point' in our usual three or four dimensions is actually smeared out, has some 'wiggle room', in the other dimensions.

God I spew when I hear this concept of extra dimensions. I regard it all as mathematical fantasy, the creation of unnecessary mystery. It is an excuse to make the maths work, one can add as many extra dimensions as they need, if such dimensions are indescribable.

At very small scales, space is not 'flat', but instead becomes 'foamy'.

Yes, but not only at very small scales, at all scales. It is the evolutionary limitations of the way our mind and senses work together that doesn't let us see the same thing at the large scale. We can see it though if we add the electromagnetic spectrum to our mental image of anything.

It isn't actually foamy though, that’s just how the hypothetical maths worked out, it is actually an more like an aura. Its edges are more like symetrically frayed and tasselled cloth waving in the wind. This is the reason that atomic bonds are so much stronger that non-atomic bonds, with frayed edges interlocking can occur through intertwining - the total spatial surface area where 'balances' or causual-negation-by-equalisation occurs is significantly larger than either solid or foamy forms.

You can not specify a location in space to arbitrary accuracy because, at very small scales, what we would consider a 'point' in our usual three or four dimensions is actually smeared out, has some 'wiggle room', in the other dimensions.

Nope, it is not wiggle room, it is that the gravity/time'/thing layer that rests on space itself is dynamic or wriggly due to its relativity to that which surrounds it. Space itself, without any layering of other properties, must always be absolute. When measuring the gravity/time/relative thing layer interferes with observation. Of course with the Heisenberg uncertainty time will have passed or inaccuracy occur between the two forms of measurement as they could not be performed in the same spatial area at the same time, and the measured thing will have changed anyway, so there is a double effect.

Sapius wrote:Tharpa,

Another enjoyable post, thanks.

Do I take it that that means - Bye, take care, good luck to you, and so on?

If that is what it means, I have no problems at all, but please specify it clearly. My English is not that good. :(

:)

No, it just meant: I really enjoyed your post! Personally I like exchanging ideas on a forum without getting into personal attacks, arguments etc. because then you can simply explore the ideas and everybody learns something. That's all I meant and I added it at the end because having gone through your post answering one section after another I thought that perhaps you or others might read it as being somewhat confrontational whereas the intention was to offer specific response to specific sections.

Jamesh wrote: "Time is relative and this relativity must be caused by something in the background changing. In order for the background to change then it must have parts and these parts must enable relativity, which is why I created my duality theory of two opposing infinite forces being the sum "total" of existence. By "total" I mean the cause of all effects."

I challenge your logical leap in the first sentence. Why must 'something in the background' be changing for stuff in the relative foreground to change?

I will go back to re-read your duality theory later today. For now, I'll quickly summarise (yet another) buddhist version, which is similar to but slightly different from the yin-yang version, albeit close to the very ancient original yin-yang of Earth-Heaven.

In this explanation we have space and form, as mentioned in the famous PrajnaParamita sutra ('form is emptiness; emptiness is form; form is no other than emptiness; emptiness is no other than form'). You could substitute 'apparent reality' and 'illusion' for form and emptiness to give the statement a facelift, but the more generic terms are better to contemplate the dynamic in more universal contexts.

In other systems, space and form are described as feminine and masculine principle respectively. Feminine principle is that space from which all can arise. It is unborn, unceasing, unoriginated. So it is that which accommodates creation without having any of the quanta/stuff/form of which creation is comprised. In other words, it doesn't change. Space simply allows things to generate. Space allows hair to curl, lips to smile, flowers to blossom without being in the slightest effected or affected one way or another.

Similarly the 'absolute' continuum of time is not affected by whether or not relative realities are travelling at slower or faster speeds, shorter or longer distances, different levels of mass or lightness. The size and depth of the sky is not effected by whether or not there are clouds therein, this only changes in terms of our relative perception as to 'what the weather today is like'.

So the dual system from these non-theistic contemplative approaches is one that balances - if you will - existence and non-existence, rather than there are two equally solid entities/energies that compliment each other.

This is contained within the classic definition of yin-yang, come to think of it, in that yang is the side of the mountain with sunshine, and yin without. The yin-yang system is a qualitative, system/process theory, not a materialistic or philosophic/metaphysic theory. Hmmm, this will confuse things because it is a different type of methodology, so strike out yin-yang from this.

However, a duality-type paradigm is fascinating to explore, and many systems have come up with it one way or another. Materialists have a hard time with it, however, because they tend to come down hard on the side of there being a single, identifiable 'truth' that exists in some sort of objective state. Nice fantasy, but clearly far too simplistic to be all that helpful. Great for building machines though...

tharpa wrote:

Sapius wrote:Tharpa,

Another enjoyable post, thanks.

Do I take it that that means - Bye, take care, good luck to you, and so on?

If that is what it means, I have no problems at all, but please specify it clearly. My English is not that good. :(

:)

No, it just meant: I really enjoyed your post! Personally I like exchanging ideas on a forum without getting into personal attacks, arguments etc. because then you can simply explore the ideas and everybody learns something. That's all I meant and I added it at the end because having gone through your post answering one section after another I thought that perhaps you or others might read it as being somewhat confrontational whereas the intention was to offer specific response to specific sections.

Thanks. I really don't confront as such, nor take it as such, for what is it that I am really supposed to be "confronting"?

However, I have been reading Jamesh from time to time, and I find that there is not much that I could really question, so in a way, he reflects the way I have experienced things, but not exactly. I simply do not have the knack at explaining due to my own shortcomings, linguistically speaking.

So please continue with Jamesh, I may get in later.

I can only say; One is not All and All is not One, rather that All is All, and that is All that there IS, and that is Reality. That is, IF, one really wants to express it in “words”, otherwise, it is Not that either.

Existence is not what one could calculate, think up, or even imagine, it has to be literally experienced, and yet, one really does not Actually KNOW, but is simply aware through A=A. (recognition – differentiation – reaction.) And for that, a thing has to necessarily remain a thing, until it dissipates due to the same causality that brings it forth.

It is really a "dance" that can be seen at the “balancing” point, NOW, which comes into being due to the play between infinite push and pull created through motion, the absolute point being the NOW, in All that there IS, hence no literal “point” at all. And yes, Existence can be kind of described as a 'wave', or simply a "living" 'vibration', wilth nothing actually tangible, but then too, it is not exactly that.

Only personal Experience can actually tell you that, coupled with logic, A=A, Recognition – Differentiation - Reaction, the basic ingredient of Existence, which does not even fail in which ever dimension one thinks exists, or literally one finds oneself in.

I am fully aware that that sounds at least illogical if not crazy, but I have no way to actually say it otherwise, irrelevant of my linguistic problems.

Jamesh,

God I spew when I hear this concept of extra dimensions. I regard it all as mathematical fantasy, the creation of unnecessary mystery. It is an excuse to make the maths work, one can add as many extra dimensions as they need, if such dimensions are indescribable.

Ultimately, that may be true, but at the same time do not underestimate Existence, in accordance with what you think is Ultimate Knowledge, and that all of it is at hand. You’d be in for a surprise if you ask me. We are still in the kindergarten stage of “mental evolution”, and that is Really happening.

The problem is, that even if one explained it, how would ‘you’ really know? How would you even believe? ‘You’ simply can’t; unless you EXPERIENCE it yourself, and “your” circle of “logic” expands, rather than disappear or not work, just because your Experiences have expanded, or that others have not yet Experienced what you have so that makes you deluded. Absolutely not.

It is exactly what I have always been telling, you cannot explain me the taste of an apple if I have never actually eaten one. Can you explain? Or could I really understand even if you tried your absolute best?

Wow! Tharpa, that triggers me...

In this explanation we have space and form, as mentioned in the famous PrajnaParamita sutra ('form is emptiness; emptiness is form; form is no other than emptiness; emptiness is no other than form').

Where the hell is the guy who said this? (I’m just joking) What he actually knows and is saying are two different things. Now, what he ‘says’ is being interpreted differently by others because they are not the people who have actually have had the "apple", and are further trying to shove in their own ‘explanations’ of what an apple tastes like, which they have not even experienced to begin with.

What this guy is trying to tell is exactly what you are questioning, (see below), and is the answer in a way. He is simply expressing his experience to those who have not had that Experience. And he has a logical reason for doing so.

I challenge your logical leap in the first sentence. Why must 'something in the background' be changing for stuff in the relative foreground to change?

Change is Reality itself, and that can only happen with forms, hence they are Reality too. There is literally nothing in the “background”, or even a “background” as such. Forms are surely “empty”, because of their inherent nature of being say ‘wave’ like, but there is no such thing as “emptiness” in any sense of the word. Hence that guy is trying to express his experience in words according to his knowledge then, which actually distorts what he has actually experienced, for OTHERS.

“Emptiness” is just a word that kind points to the Un-known, or un-knowable essence that one thinks is at play in the ‘background’. So this guy who has actually experienced existence, and stunned by it, does not Really KNOW what happened? And since he cannot keep quiet about such an awesome experience, wants to understand it himself and tell others, that such an experience exists.

Now how in the hell will he explain what the other has not tasted at all?

And since he knows that generally people will not understand, comes up with this brilliant thought, which transforms the idea of the then existing “God”, (it’s no different even now) into a Background “thing”, and then says that THAT actually does not exist separately, which hence removes the thought of an independently existing God, (IF understood and accepted), which was prevalent and much more common THEN. And hence first explains the “emptiness” of forms, which is correct, and then, for the sake of others, conjures up “emptiness” that somewhat equates to God, and then says that Emptiness and form is actually one and the same thing, thereby eliminating the concept of an independent God, and yet trying to make it acceptable to the one who has not actually expereinced it, and cannot simply believe that there could be NO Background at all.

Now this is not a specially realized thought of Buddhism, but existed much before Sidharth Gautam, because there were many Hindus before him, and even today that believe that every and any thing is “God”, because that is the “background” of All things, but ‘things’ are Maya, illusory. Even Christianity says that WE are made in the “Image” of God, because the person who wrote that, thought that he was surely better than a dog or a tree, so God could only reflect in "me" the great.

But what he (the guy who came up with emptiness/form) Actually Knows is that there is no “foreground” OR “background” as such. Hence ALL is just IS; no actual up or down, no right or left, no yesterday or tomorrow, no forward or backward. That is because he has experienced existence literally, which is literally ALIVE, and that experience is not so common, AS YET.

'form is emptiness; emptiness is form; form is no other than emptiness; emptiness is no other than form'

Look at it closely again. Hence, it is one and the same “thing”, hence both are actually NO thing at all. Illogical! Isn’t it? But it is not, actually. I must be crazy!

Hence, I say…. what can I say…

It does not really matter, the one who gets to see, will see.

For now, one can still keep thinking on….

'form is emptiness; emptiness is form; form is no other than emptiness; emptiness is no other than form'

…and keep thinking…. What the hell does that Really mean? And the joke is, if he really thinks hard enough, he will know it through experience, and yet not "know" any thing at all, for there really in nothing to KNOW at all, just be.

Again… illogical, right? But never mind.... I'm already done in a way... I must.... at this point of TIME.

I like that magazine by the way. :)

time is many dots.